Matching Parton Showers and Matrix Elements

By Stefan Hoeche, F. Krauss, N. Lavesson, L. Lonnblad, M. Mangano, A. Schaelicke, Steffen Schumann. 2006

272 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We compare different procedures for combining fixed-order tree-level matrix element generators with parton showers. We use the case of W-production at the Tevatron and the LHC to compare different implementations of the so-called CKKW scheme and one based on the so-called MLM scheme using different matrix element generators and different parton cascades. We find that although similar results are obtained in all cases, there are important differences.

Subfields: Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cc008290e97889a7a7544e59ab01adf5dbb68c73

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Nuclear and High Energy Physics

Citations in the corpus

A comprehensive approach to new physics simulations (2009, methodology): “Here also, significant progress has been made in the development of matching algorithms such as that by Catani, Krauss, Kuhn and Webber (CKKW) [30, 31, 32], Mangano (MLM) [33] and others [34, 35, 36], in their comparison [37, 38] and application to SM [33, 39] and BSM [40] processes.”
Quark and gluon jet substructure (2012, methodology): “In a fully-matched sample (using CKKW [18] or MLM [19] for example), each jet comes unambiguously from exactly one hard parton, and the flavor of this parton is known.”
QCD matrix elements and truncated showers (2009, methodology): “The MLM prescription, also presented in [18] bases on using a simple cone definition as the jet criterion to generate the parton configurations at the matrix-element level.”
MadGraph/MadEvent v4: The New Web Generation (2007, methodology): “Here too, significant advances have been made in the development of matching algorithms such as that by Catani, Krauss, Kuhn and Webber (CKKW) [13 – 15], by Mangano (MLM) [16, 49] and by Lavesson and Lönnblad [17] and in their comparison [18, 19].”
MadGraph 5: going beyond (2011, methodology): “Here again, signiﬁcant progress has been made in the development of merging algorithms, such as CKKW and MLM merging [36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42], and in their comparison [43, 44], with applications to SM [45, 39, 46] and to BSM [47] processes.”